3 seniors per year from 2023-2025, 9 total

[Andy Piascik]

We don't need all-decade teams or half-decade teams because we have all-pro teams going back to the 1920s that are incredibly useful in evaluating players we haven't seen (or those we have seen). In fact, we have multiple all-pro teams for practically every season. There's a rich mix of opinion: some selected by players, some by coaches, some by writers, some by a combination of scouts, personnel evaluators, general managers, etc., exactly what you want in coming to a good conclusion about who the best players were/are. Today we even have websites where people spend hours and hours viewing game film and grading every single player based on every single play and then award all-pro honors accordingly.

There are far, far too many examples of wrong choices on the all-decade teams, plus the time frame they're measuring is completely arbitrary. Carl Banks made an all-decade team. Chuck Howley did not. How can that information be at all useful when it comes to the HOF, to comparing the two or for any other reason when any knowledgeable person knows that Howley was the vastly superior player?

John Anderson made an all-decade team, Randy Gradishar did not. How is this in any way useful information? Not only is it not useful, it's harmful because somebody can now justify elevating Anderson. In fact, there are MANY subpar players on these lists if the context is a discussion of the HOF. Howard Mudd? Seriously? Joe Fortunato? Seriously? Dave Butz? Are we supposed to take Dave Butz seriously as a HOF candidate because he was named to an all-decade team? Yet this is precisely what has happened over and over and over again. It's the only way to explain how Stabler and Covert and Pearson and Bryant Young and many others are in the HOF while many, many far more deserving players remain on the outside looking in.

I've posted here numerous times about the arbitrariness of a random 10-year period and how great players who have many great seasons divided between two decades and don't make an all-decade team get bypassed for the HOF in favor of inferior players who had fewer great season but had them all in a single decade and thus made an all-decade team and the HOF. I would think the ridiculousness of these many scenarios would be obvious; apparently not.

[Bryan]

And again, I'm not saying to just go by the all-decade teams or that they're perfect, I'm just saying that they serve a purpose -- "

I disagree. They serve no purpose other than to attach imaginary significance to something that is completely arbitrary.

[rewing84]

And again, I'm not saying to just go by the all-decade teams or that they're perfect, I'm just saying that they serve a purpose -- "

I disagree. They serve no purpose other than to attach imaginary significance to something that is completely arbitrary.

im with you on that bryan 110% they are nothing but fluff

[Reaser]

I disagree. They serve no purpose other than to attach imaginary significance to something that is completely arbitrary.

Exactly.

[Brian wolf]

You guys are right, especially Andy but with Rick Gosselin pushing for All-Decade choices, logic is somewhat out the window but hopefully with Andy, Ken, John and TJ pushing for nearly unanimous choices on Talkoffamenetwork, the other voters can be persuaded more by September ...

[rewing84]

heres my wishlist what do you guys think


Ox Emerson

Randy Gradishar

Al Wistert

Dick Barwegen

Chuck Howley

Ken Riley

Ken Anderson

Gene Brito

L. Dilweg

[Brian wolf]

All subjective wishlists are good because as fans, historians and team followers, we champion the players we enjoyed watching, researching or learning about but players who have the accolades, postseason success and passing the eye test but simply fell through the cracks, need to get their wrongs righted with these hopeful nine elections. Even if say, seven seniors were elected in the next three years, at least two more would get their cases heard and possibly benefit beyond 2025. It also allows for what really should have been two seniors per year going from 2021-2024, with three possibly in 2025, if that makes any sense ... haha

I still want Benton on my wishlist, though Smerlas disputably could be the first true nose tackle to be voted in, unless he played some defensive tackle which Culp mostly did in KC. Nick and John could correct me on this because Charlie Johnson and Bob Baumhower also excelled in that period ?

People on here are saying that Sharpe was second only to Rice in the nineties, though fans of Irvin, Rison, Brown and Carter might dispute that but in the 1940s, Benton was the second best receiver only to All-Universe Don Hutson ...

[Bryan]

People on here are saying that Sharpe was second only to Rice in the nineties, though fans of Irvin, Rison, Brown and Carter might dispute that but in the 1940s, Benton was the second best receiver only to All-Universe Don Hutson ...

No way...if someone wants to put forth an argument that Andre Rison was better than Sterling Sharpe, I would be FASCINATED to see that.

Sterling Sharpe played 7 seasons, all of them during Jerry Rice's prime, and Sharpe led the NFL in a major receiving category (catches, yards, TDs) 6 times. Andre Rison, Tim Brown, Michael Irvin & Cris Carter played a combined 57 seasons and led the NFL in a major receiving category 7 times (Carter led the NFL in receiving TDs 3 times).

[Brian wolf]

Haha ... you're right Bryan, Sharpe was superior to Rison, especially with two more All-Pro selections but let's say Rison stayed with Atlanta and Jeff George in 1995, instead of his disastrous season in Cleveland ... his stats his first seven seasons would have been a lot more comparable to Sharpe, minus the postseason of course.

I am a fan of both and feel Sharpe is deserving, though Rison could have been as well had he stayed with the Falcons but free agency has changed the course of a lot of football careers. Though Michael Irvin didn't have the talent of Sharpe, especially after early leg injuries slowed him down even further, I felt he was more unselfish as a teammate, a better blocker, and slightly more clutch in the postseason but I am biased, being a Cowboy fan at that time.

[Hail Casares]

Haha ... you're right Bryan, Sharpe was superior to Rison, especially with two more All-Pro selections but let's say Rison stayed with Atlanta and Jeff George in 1995, instead of his disastrous season in Cleveland ... his stats his first seven seasons would have been a lot more comparable to Sharpe, minus the postseason of course.

.

I think that's being really charitable to Rison and also ignoring the systems differences. In 1994 Rison wasn't even the leading WR on the Falcons. Mathis bested him in catches, yards, and TD's. Sharpe was always the leading pass catcher in a more restrictive offense. Many times by nearly 2x as many catches or yards than the next closest WR. In 1993 Sharpe caught 112 passes, the next closest GB WR had 32. In 1992 he caught 108 passes. Next closest WR... 17(?!?!?!) The thought of what Sharpe could have done in a Run and Shoot offense where his next leading pass catchers weren't Edgar Bennett and Jackie Harris is terrifying. Rison wasn't putting up better numbers than Sharpe despite playing on a team that threw the ball much more. Rison was a really good player, Sharpe was a monster.